Will Open Data Solve Peer Review Concerns?

The report, “Peer Review in Scientific Publications,” released last week by the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, reiterates much of what we already know:

• That peer and editorial review is important for maintaining the integrity of the scientific literature
• That the process of peer review is not consistent across all journals
• That pre-publication review may be supplemented — although not replaced — by post-publication review
• That publishers need to continue experimenting with other models for review and dissemination
• That editors and senior academics need to educate new scholars on how to provide quality reviews
• That granting and promotion committees should not rely upon a single metric (e.g., the impact factor) in order to evaluate the merits of a paper